Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!mcdphx!riscokid.UUCP!fnf
From: fnf@riscokid.UUCP (Fred Fish)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Old AmigaLibDisk material
Message-ID: <14089@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com>
Date: 19 Nov 90 15:15:42 GMT
References: <9654@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> <35991@cup.portal.com>
Sender: listen@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com
Reply-To: fnf@riscokid.UUCP (Fred Fish)
Organization: Motorola Microcomputer Division, Tempe, Az.
Lines: 32

In article <35991@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes:
>Which brings me to a rambling comment concerning some archives sites removing
>"old" Fish Disks ... DON'T.  Some of the MOST valuable code examples for the
>Amiga can be found on early Fish Disks (i.e. #5).  The program I cited above
>is on Fish Disk #36, and just yesterday I referred someone to Fish Disk #79
>for the source to Chuck McManis' "INFO" clone.  Just because something may
>have been written 4, 5 or 6 years ago does NOT make it obsolete ... in fact,
>some of the early programs were so good that no-one has been able to improve
>upon them.  Even most of the early Usenet Amiga discussions from mid-1985 are
>still valuable today (which is why I've kept those archives all these years).

Good comment Thad.  Examination of some of the early disks, and then
some of the latest, will show that the "flavor" of the library has
changed substantially over the years.  A depressingly common portion
of the description of each item on some of the newer disks is "binary only".
People seem more reluctant these days to release source.

I have been tempted to start a new policy of only including material for
which source is either distributed with the material, or available from the
author, and that such source has to be provided (even if not distributed)
with any submissions.  This would probably noticably cut down on the number
of future disks, but I think the overall quality would be higher.
Comments pro and con are invited...

On an unrelated note, I am starting to think about giving the "look and
feel" of my library disks a facelift.  Specifically, updated icons that
look great under 2.0 and passable under 1.3, and other 2.0 vs 1.3
issues.  If anyone with some artistic ability would like to see one
of their icons adopted for use in the library, please feel free to
send me a sample of your work.  

-Fred